[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: SRH-reorg.. No basis for accusations
In article <4csfms$its@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
GOPAL Ganapathiraju Sree Ramana <gopal@ecf.toronto.edu> wrote:
>
>NO FACTUAL BASIS for the accusation:
>
> "SRV people are out there to destroy SRH"
After submitting this article, i found more data and info from
the net. so i am enclosing the revised verion here. my apologies
for some bandwidth wastage... as i can not cancel my prv article
from moderated group.
================begin inclusion==========================
The proposal for soc.religion.hindu-reorginization is a proposal
that i sincerely feel would improve the debates on hindu related
aspects
however, some people made *rash* accusations (imho) that some how
people behind s.r.v. are trying to take control of the SRH.
I made some survey of the postings, and tabulated data, and summarised
the results below. This article clearly shows that the accusations
have *NO* *factual* basis.
========================================================
NO FACTUAL BASIS for the accusation:
"SRV people are out there to destroy SRH"
Some facts, first:
(a) Fact #1 Proponents of SRH-reorg are NOT proponents of SRV
================================
S Rao was NOT a proponent of SRV
Vv Pai was NOT a proponent of SRV
Vj Pai was NOT a proponent of SRV
Mani V was NOT a proponent of SRV
H Groover was NOT a proponent of SRV
(b) Fact #2 Proponents of SRH-reorg are NOT moderators of SRV
=================================
S Rao is NOT a moderator of SRV
Vv Pai is NOT a moderator of SRV
Vj Pai is NOT a moderator of SRV
Mani V is only responsible for hardware aspects of SRV moderation,
but does not control the moderation policies. He is bound by the
charter contained in CFV for SRV
H Groover is only responsible for software aspects of SRV moderation,
but does not control the moderation policies. He is bound by the
charter contained in CFV for SRV
[see the article by Badrinarayan on news.group]
(c) Fact # 3 Some of the moderators are not involved in SRV at all
======================================
Srini Pichumani (proposed moderator) has not voted in SRV creation.
Raghu Seshadri (proposed moderator) has not voted in SRV creation.
(d) Fact #4 None of the proponents of SRV are Proponents of SRH
===================
Badrinarayan Seshadri NOT a proponent of SRH
Susan Brish NOT a proponent of SRH
Anand Hudli NOT a proponent of SRH
Kesavan Potty NOT a proponent of SRH
Narahari S Pujal NOT a proponent of SRH
Vidya Shankar Sunderesan NOT a proponent of SRH
(e) Fact #5 None of the proponents of SRV are the proposed moderators
of SRH
======================
Badrinarayan Seshadri NOT a moderator of SRH
Susan Brish NOT a moderator of SRH
Anand Hudli NOT a moderator of SRH
Kesavan Potty NOT a moderator of SRH
Narahari S Pujal NOT a moderator of SRH
Vidya Shankar Sunderesan NOT a moderator of SRH
(f) Fact #6 Some of opponents of SRH-reorg have voted against SRV
================================================================
N.Tiwari
Jai M
Ajay Shah
Rajiv Varma
Raj Bhatnagar
Arun Malik
(g) Fact #7 Some of the today's opponents of SRV have in fact voted
Yes on SRV
==================================================================
Bon G
Now the analysis
---------------------
o None of the SRV proponents are behind SRH. They have NO control
over SRV or SRH or SRH after reorg.
o Proponents of SRH-reorg are NOT involved in SRV proposition or
moderation, except for Mani V and Groover H. None of them have
"control" over SRV, SRH or SRH after reorg.
o Mani V and Groover are only hardware and software maintainers, and
can not make decisions w.r.t. moderation policies of SRV. The
program that moderates SRV has to function within the charter
contained in CFV.
o only oblique link one could find between SRV and SRH is that
of Mani V and Groover H being Hardware and software maintainers
of SRV; and given that they can do little to stop posts on a
individual case by case basis shows that they have little control
on SRV in terms of the "contents" of posts.
o If voting or arguing in favour of SRV constitutes taking over
of SRH by a group, then SO DOES voting or arguing against the SRV.
N Tiwari, Ajay Shah, Rajiv Varma, Raj Bhatnagar, Arun Malik and
Jai M have voted against.
o If voting or arguing in favour of SRV constitutes taking over
SRH, Bon G has voted in favour.
o Please note that I AM *NOT* against any of them participating
in this discussion at all. I am only showing the fallacy of the
a hypothetical argument that voting on SRV and taking a side of
of RFD debate in SRH amounts taking control of SRH.
o I dont remember to have seen any articles or posts so far by
the proponents of SRV (with the exception of one article by
Badrinarayan, that too explaining *only* the SRV moderation issues
*not* related to RFD on SRH-reorg)
o I am NOT implying that moderators or proponents of SRV should not
have or should not get involved in this RFD debate. I am only saying
that the accusations that have been hurled that they are out to take
control of SRH are WITHOUT BASIS. IN FACT, i would welcome if they
also participate and CONTRIBUTE TO THE DEBATE.
(my apologies if there are any spelling errors in the names listed)
====================end inclusion ============================
Follow-Ups:
